Seals Day Two: Further Observations

Another interesting aspect of day two was that Norway began to break ranks with Canada, claiming that the practices depicted in the EU's videos of the Canadian Hunt would not be tolerated by Norway, what the hunt is under constant inspection. But the EU pointed to the limited credibility of Norway's evidence of the humaneness of its hunt, describing its presentation as "propaganda" in the sense that it was drawn almost entirely from offical government sources or persons working for the Norweigian government. The EU claimed that Norway does not permit the hunt to be observed by independent parties; the implication is that it would be impossible to get unbiased verification of what Norway presents as evidence. Norway's attorney rose to speak, but in the end said nothing to deny or rebut the allegation that observation of the hunt is prohibited.

Norway's attorney also refered to my blog post of yesterday, where I noted the inconsistency of Norway dismissing evidence of problems with the Norweigian hunt because it was offered by an animal rights NGO while presenting the evidence of one of its own inspectors as independent. The attorney wrongly claimed that I was saying that the inspector was biased because he was of Norweigian ethnic or national origin. I never said any such thing but rather had referred to his apparent connection to the Norweigian government. That the inspector in question is an ethnic Swede was yet another red herring introduced by the Norway attorney, in this case in order to misrepresent my own point (and perhaps make me sound racist).

TrackBack

Comments

Seals Day Two: Further Observations

Another interesting aspect of day two was that Norway began to break ranks with Canada, claiming that the practices depicted in the EU's videos of the Canadian Hunt would not be tolerated by Norway, what the hunt is under constant inspection. But the EU pointed to the limited credibility of Norway's evidence of the humaneness of its hunt, describing its presentation as "propaganda" in the sense that it was drawn almost entirely from offical government sources or persons working for the Norweigian government. The EU claimed that Norway does not permit the hunt to be observed by independent parties; the implication is that it would be impossible to get unbiased verification of what Norway presents as evidence. Norway's attorney rose to speak, but in the end said nothing to deny or rebut the allegation that observation of the hunt is prohibited.

Norway's attorney also refered to my blog post of yesterday, where I noted the inconsistency of Norway dismissing evidence of problems with the Norweigian hunt because it was offered by an animal rights NGO while presenting the evidence of one of its own inspectors as independent. The attorney wrongly claimed that I was saying that the inspector was biased because he was of Norweigian ethnic or national origin. I never said any such thing but rather had referred to his apparent connection to the Norweigian government. That the inspector in question is an ethnic Swede was yet another red herring introduced by the Norway attorney, in this case in order to misrepresent my own point (and perhaps make me sound racist).